Your email address has been added to my Spam Fighter White List. Adding your
address to the White List ensures that I will always receive email you send to
me.
If you aren't using All-in-One SECRETMAKER, I recommend that you examine this
powerful freeware. I recommend All-in-One SECRETMAKER
* Sander Temme wrote:
> This is the httpd-trunk version of the patch discussed under
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11036567171&r=1&w=2). It adds a -m
> flag to ab that allows you to enforce the SSL version used by ab on the
> command line.
>
> I also updated the ab.xml
This is the httpd-trunk version of the patch discussed under
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11036567171&r=1&w=2). It adds a -m
flag to ab that allows you to enforce the SSL version used by ab on the
command line.
I also updated the ab.xml documentation file, but how do
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 02:02:46PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
> We're also not talking about Ciphers here, just protocol versions. It
> figures out the ciphersuites for itself. I figure if we want to get
> that sophisticated, we'd better pour our energy into flood instead of
> ab.
>
Cipher was
On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
Could this be similar to openssl s_client - ssl2, ssl3, ... and the
no_ssl2, no_ssl3 etc? Just like you might want to specify a specific
version, I could see where it would be nice to go the other way and
remove a specific cipher.
That's right, this i
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 01:03:13PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2004, at 11:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> >Can we use a separate flag to specific protocol version?
>
> To address both your and André's response, yes we can. I even found an
> unused letter that makes sense:
On Dec 21, 2004, at 11:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Can we use a separate flag to specific protocol version?
To address both your and André's response, yes we can. I even found an
unused letter that makes sense: -m for 'method'. And yes, I'll do a 2.1
patch. The reason my personal itch was
On Dec 21, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
see patch
+1
On Dec 21, 2004, at 2:15 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
The following patch (inline and attached) expands the experimental -s
flag to ab to specify the SSL version used for the benchmark run.
Valid versions are SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 and ANY in which case the
program will use the highest version available
At 01:15 PM 12/21/2004, Sander Temme wrote:
>The following patch (inline and attached) expands the experimental -s flag to
>ab to specify the SSL version used for the benchmark run. Valid versions are
>SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 and ANY in which case the program will use the highest
>version available.
* Jeff Trawick wrote:
> see patch
[...]
+1.
nd
--
> Rätselnd, was ein Anthroposoph mit Unterwerfung zu tun hat...
[...] Dieses Wort gibt so viele Stellen für einen Spelling Flame her, und
Du gönnst einem keine einzige.-- Jean Claude und David Kastrup in dtl
* Jeff Trawick wrote:
> See attached patch.
>
> For reference, here is the 2.0 CHANGES entry and a link to the 2.0 patch:
>
> *) mod_log_config: Fix %b log format to write really "-" when 0 bytes
> were sent (e.g. with 304 or 204 response codes). [Astrid Ke\337ler]
>
> http://cvs.apache.or
* Sander Temme wrote:
> The following patch (inline and attached) expands the experimental -s
> flag to ab to specify the SSL version used for the benchmark run. Valid
> versions are SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 and ANY in which case the program will
> use the highest version available. This code is active
On Dec 20, 2004, at 5:28 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I've seen those warnings when compiling numerous open source projects
on Mac OS X, no idea what the underlying cause is though.
The reason is that the MacOSX system libraries have regex functions
which have the same names as the ones in PCRE. So,
The following patch (inline and attached) expands the experimental -s
flag to ab to specify the SSL version used for the benchmark run. Valid
versions are SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 and ANY in which case the program will
use the highest version available. This code is active when httpd is
configured w
See attached patch.
For reference, here is the 2.0 CHANGES entry and a link to the 2.0 patch:
*) mod_log_config: Fix %b log format to write really "-" when 0 bytes
were sent (e.g. with 304 or 204 response codes). [Astrid Ke\337ler]
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/logg
see patch
Index: src/modules/standard/mod_log_forensic.c
===
--- src/modules/standard/mod_log_forensic.c (revision 122969)
+++ src/modules/standard/mod_log_forensic.c (working copy)
@@ -189,7 +189,8 @@
if (!(id = ap_table_
Mladen Turk wrote:
So this is basically a forward proxy problem correct?
Yes.
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
URL1:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL2:
http://www.wetter.com/v2/?SID=&LANG=DE&LOC=0280&LOCFROM=0202®ion=BY
When reloading both tabs in the sequence URL1 first and then URL2 the
second URL is requested from an existing connection to bitmover.co
Mladen Turk wrote:
Since it's prefork we don't have a threading problem.
Can you paste some light and post the Proxy config
directives. It will help.
It is the same problem and config as already sent. Nevertheless to save
you the time here it comes again:
Browser is either mozilla or firefox, two
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
Yes, but you are running 1.3.27.
What that has to do with the Apache2.1 mod_proxy?
Nope, the version number pasted is in the 404 reply that comes from the
bitmover site. To clarify what I'm currently running:
/usr/local/apache/bin/httpsd -V
Server version: Apache/2.1.3-de
Mladen Turk wrote:
Yes, but you are running 1.3.27.
What that has to do with the Apache2.1 mod_proxy?
Nope, the version number pasted is in the 404 reply that comes from the
bitmover site. To clarify what I'm currently running:
/usr/local/apache/bin/httpsd -V
Server version: Apache/2.1.3-dev
Serv
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
Unfortunately it looks as the http problem is still there as I
discovered today:
Yes, but you are running 1.3.27.
What that has to do with the Apache2.1 mod_proxy?
Mladen.
Mladen Turk wrote:
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
Since the fix is trivial, I'll commit the changes ASAP.
Will you be able to retest upon the commit?
Managed to find the time to install subversion. Seems that the problem
is fixed. Thanks.
Cool. Glad this also works on your side of the wire too 8-).
U
24 matches
Mail list logo
